Holy shiat you people are nit-picky. This thread is the definition of can't see the forest for the trees. The example was broad and cobbled together...it was only meant to represent the idea of not being able to raise pay because it would cut out any profit. People's value, in dollars, is limited by what value, in dollars, they produce.

Food bank? Wish I could eat it. Right now, I have the worst kind of broken tooth misery. I could be in Rio, Paris or on the Space Station, and all I'd really crave is a dentist's needle. Yep, ths shiat is fo real!

positive p:Profit is what a company earns after subtracting costs from revenue. Labor is a cost. $10 profit per hour of labor means that the labor was paid for and created $10 extra dollars for the company.

These are basic principles of business. Like, extremely basic.

Exactly. And they're wildly different from basic principles of society.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener:"I turned my head and started to cry because I was so angry, although she thought I was crying because of the gesture. They just don't get that I'd rather they pay me a better wage so I wouldn't have to go to a food bank."

Silly Jesus:Holy shiat you people are nit-picky. This thread is the definition of can't see the forest for the trees. The example was broad and cobbled together...it was only meant to represent the idea of not being able to raise pay because it would cut out any profit. People's value, in dollars, is limited by what value, in dollars, they produce.

Is everyone here farking autistic? That's a serious question.

HAHA! I used an idiotic example to explain a complex problem! And when you claim it makes no sense, I'll just say that you don't get it! HAHA!

Forest for the trees....classic backpedal of a dumbass argument.

In summary, Silly Jesus, I could eat alphabet soup and shiat a better argument than that.

demaL-demaL-yeH:skullkrusher: demaL-demaL-yeH: willfullyobscure: I wonder what the C-level salaries are for this non-profit?Niiice.

Twenty-three employees pulling in more than a million? In a $5 billion non-profit?I think I know where I'd look for enough money to get Leslie and her chainmates a raise to a living wage after nine years.

a different job?

Name the largest employer in the state, farkwit. Go on - I'll wait.

seems like you already did. This is your argument? She already works for the largest employer in the state - employing some 55,000 people in a state of 12,000,000 people ergo she can't work somewhere else?

You know what the largest employer in New York State is? North Shore-LIJ Health System with 37,000 employees. Guess where no one I know works? There.

joonyer:Silly Jesus: Holy shiat you people are nit-picky. This thread is the definition of can't see the forest for the trees. The example was broad and cobbled together...it was only meant to represent the idea of not being able to raise pay because it would cut out any profit. People's value, in dollars, is limited by what value, in dollars, they produce.

Is everyone here farking autistic? That's a serious question.

HAHA! I used an idiotic example to explain a complex problem! And when you claim it makes no sense, I'll just say that you don't get it! HAHA!

Forest for the trees....classic backpedal of a dumbass argument.

In summary, Silly Jesus, I could eat alphabet soup and shiat a better argument than that.

It's the fact that everyone was concentrating on a mis-statement and ignoring the larger argument. I really does seem autistic. Aspergers maybe?

Silly Jesus:Holy shiat you people are nit-picky. This thread is the definition of can't see the forest for the trees. The example was broad and cobbled together...it was only meant to represent the idea of not being able to raise pay because it would cut out any profit. People's value, in dollars, is limited by what value, in dollars, they produce.

Silly Jesus:Even if the company isn't hurting (which is the case for some of them, for some of them it isn't), show me where any company is obligated to pay anyone some arbitrary amount which will make their employee "comfortable."

Uh... Minimum wage laws?

That's the whole point of minimum wage laws, to keep companies from paying what they could get away with to people desperate enough to take it. Unfortunately, adjusted for everything, minimum wage is almost at an all time low right now.

Silly Jesus:lelio: Silly Jesus: I own a company, and I sell widgets. I get $11 for each widget that I sell. I pay Bob $10 for each widget that he makes, but his family is hungry. What is your solution for the evil business owner?

Obviously to stop paying yourself a salary, Mr. McGreedyPants

I know (hope) you're being facetious, but this is what libs actually believe.

He'll go out of business shortly because he can't pay his suppliers, or his rent, or his utilities, or his taxes because he's charging too little for his product. The UPMC or Walmart, and papa john's have done a pretty brilliant job dumping their healthcare costs, food costs, housing costs of their employees on the taxpayers I think they'll figure out a way to stay profitable if they paid their employees enough to live.

jaylectricity:Silly Jesus: I own a company, and I sell widgets. I get $11 for each widget that I sell. I pay Bob $10 for each widget that he makes, but his family is hungry. What is your solution for the evil business owner?

2. Even if the company isn't hurting (which is the case for some of them, for some of them it isn't), show me where any company is obligated to pay anyone some arbitrary amount which will make their employee "comfortable."

Ah I think we're finally making progress. Here you've clearly equivocated. You think that not being hungry is a 'comfort' instead of a basic function of human dignity in a society that can easily afford to eradicate this problem as if it were polio.

FatalDischarge:Silly Jesus: Holy shiat you people are nit-picky. This thread is the definition of can't see the forest for the trees. The example was broad and cobbled together...it was only meant to represent the idea of not being able to raise pay because it would cut out any profit. People's value, in dollars, is limited by what value, in dollars, they produce.

Silly Jesus:FatalDischarge: Silly Jesus: Holy shiat you people are nit-picky. This thread is the definition of can't see the forest for the trees. The example was broad and cobbled together...it was only meant to represent the idea of not being able to raise pay because it would cut out any profit. People's value, in dollars, is limited by what value, in dollars, they produce.

Obviously UPMC was worried that if they gave a pay raise the money still would not be used for groceries, and the employees would still go to the food bank. So this way they know they are providing food directly.

positive p:jaylectricity: Silly Jesus: I own a company, and I sell widgets. I get $11 for each widget that I sell. I pay Bob $10 for each widget that he makes, but his family is hungry. What is your solution for the evil business owner?

Silly Jesus:

2. Even if the company isn't hurting (which is the case for some of them, for some of them it isn't), show me where any company is obligated to pay anyone some arbitrary amount which will make their employee "comfortable."

Ah I think we're finally making progress. Here you've clearly equivocated. You think that not being hungry is a 'comfort' instead of a basic function of human dignity in a society that can easily afford to eradicate this problem as if it were polio.

Silly Jesus:FatalDischarge: Silly Jesus: Holy shiat you people are nit-picky. This thread is the definition of can't see the forest for the trees. The example was broad and cobbled together...it was only meant to represent the idea of not being able to raise pay because it would cut out any profit. People's value, in dollars, is limited by what value, in dollars, they produce.

Is everyone here farking autistic? That's a serious question.

No. You are just a horrible person.

Better horrible than autistic.

No. Horrible people cause problems. You are what is wrong with America. Not that you would know.

orclover:Every job that pays less than $15 dollars an hour should come with a list of social programs to help you stay alive and somewhat healthy, or at least not in constant pain. But yea, socialism, cant have that. So everybody enjoy yer toothaches and broken limbs peasants.

I think some Walmarts did this and got biatched at for it. The idea was that rather than helping people know where the safety nets are and how to make sure they're in them, they should have been paying real actual livable wages. If you're working full time and need help to survive, even with minimum wage, it means the economy is farked up, or you've farked up real bad somewhere and need to reevaluate your life.

Silly Jesus:Holy shiat you people are nit-picky. This thread is the definition of can't see the forest for the trees. The example was broad and cobbled together...it was only meant to represent the idea of not being able to raise pay because it would cut out any profit. People's value, in dollars, is limited by what value, in dollars, they produce.

Is everyone here farking autistic? That's a serious question.

In trying to come up with a "broad and cobbled together" example you created a scenario where--as is usually the case--the conundrum is the fault of incompetent ownership instead of greed by labor.

2. Even if the company isn't hurting (which is the case for some of them, for some of them it isn't), show me where any company is obligated to pay anyone some arbitrary amount which will make their employee "comfortable."

1. No, no, no... your example was stupid and had fark-all to do with the current discussion, and showed you to be an idiot with regards to what the definition of "profit" is. That's not nit-picking, that's correctly pointing out that you have no idea what you're talking about and that your "example" offers nothing as far as insight into the current situation.

2. I see we've already moved the goalposts. The problem is not "do they have a right to do this"... precisely zero people in this thread have argued that their wages are illegally low. The point is that they shouldn't be doing this, since paying a liveable wage is something that a company should do for its employees. It's not a legal argument, it's an ethical one. To sit and say "well, they don't have to" is to miss the entire point of the argument and the article, just as UPMC did with it's food bank idea.

Apparently it wasn't started by the hospital, but by a group of employees. Still, the sensible thing to do would be contributing to/volunteering at a well-run existing food bank, rather than setting up a private system just for their coworkers.

FatalDischarge:Silly Jesus: FatalDischarge: Silly Jesus: Holy shiat you people are nit-picky. This thread is the definition of can't see the forest for the trees. The example was broad and cobbled together...it was only meant to represent the idea of not being able to raise pay because it would cut out any profit. People's value, in dollars, is limited by what value, in dollars, they produce.

Is everyone here farking autistic? That's a serious question.

No. You are just a horrible person.

Better horrible than autistic.

No. Horrible people cause problems. You are what is wrong with America. Not that you would know.

Silly Jesus:joonyer: Silly Jesus: Holy shiat you people are nit-picky. This thread is the definition of can't see the forest for the trees. The example was broad and cobbled together...it was only meant to represent the idea of not being able to raise pay because it would cut out any profit. People's value, in dollars, is limited by what value, in dollars, they produce.

Is everyone here farking autistic? That's a serious question.

HAHA! I used an idiotic example to explain a complex problem! And when you claim it makes no sense, I'll just say that you don't get it! HAHA!

Forest for the trees....classic backpedal of a dumbass argument.

In summary, Silly Jesus, I could eat alphabet soup and shiat a better argument than that.

It's the fact that everyone was concentrating on a mis-statement and ignoring the larger argument. I really does seem autistic. Aspergers maybe?

demaL-demaL-yeH:The point is they don't pay a living wage. To employees of nine years. Do you believe, for even an instant, that smaller employers don't follow their example?

No, I am wholly convinced that every clerical and administrative worker in the state of Pennsylvania must rely on food banks to meet ends meet. Hey, a subset of the employees of the largest employer needs to, it must be true for all employers.

Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the United States. They are notorious for underpaying their workers. How the hell do any of us afford anything - what with all our smaller employers following their lead.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener:"I turned my head and started to cry because I was so angry, although she thought I was crying because of the gesture. They just don't get that I'd rather they pay me a better wage so I wouldn't have to go to a food bank."

Damn, just... damn.

I think it's time for mass exodus.

I mean, I know the workers gotta make ends meet, but they have to realize that if their wages can't keep them off of food stamps and out of soup kitchens, then their job is not helping them make ends meet.

Meanwhile, if I ever have to go to a hospital in Pittsburgh, it won't be at UPMC.